daddy1gringo wrote:What a joke. I clearly took up your challenge, made the substitution as you requested, showing clearly how the substitution didn't work. It's not my fault that you continued to hold your hand over your eyes and declare exactly the opposite of what was clearly there. The statements, with the substitution, made absolutely no sense. Bigots having a problem with people of different races marrying has nothing to do with trying to re-define the very nature of marriage.BigBallinStalin wrote:Whichever arguments are similar, I discard both--if one has been already refuted (which is why analogies are useful). If dissimilar, then I let the opposition explain. Daddy1gringo refused, so he's left with the reductio ad absurdum until he can muster a good argument against gay marriage.
I haven't followed any of your discussion with BBS. However, being a "bigot" does not at all necessarily relate to race. One can be a bigot against any type of group.
(Note: I am NOT calling you a bigot, just disagreeing with what appears to be your use of the term.)